IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for loss of life must accurately reflect the deceased's income and future prospects, adhering to established legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount quantified and awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (‘Tribunal’) by its award dated 08.08.2023 in MAC Case No.86/2020 (C.I.S. No.86/2020), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.33,31,062/- in favour of claimant along with interest @ 6.5% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.90,90,000/- on account of unfortunate death of their sole breadwinner late Sh. Joga Ram, who lost his life in the accident took place on 04.03.2020. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 04.03.2020 at about 09:30 am, deceased Joga Ram was going on his Moped bearing registration number RJ-24-SM-6910 to his workshop from village Gol to Paldi-M, then on NH No.62 on Paldi-M Bypass, when he reached at Morli overbridge, a Trailor, which was driven by its driver non-claimant No.1 in negligent manner, hit the deceased from behind. As a result of which, Joga Ram sustained injuries and died on spot. An FIR No.39/2020 was lodged at Police Station Paldi-M, wherein after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences under Sections 279, 304 A of IPC before the competent court. In the claim petition, it was stated that deceased Joga Ram was working as Office Attendant in Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Paldi-M and the claimants were his dependents. It was stated that deceased was getting salary of Rs.38,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the claimants on 24.08.2020 claiming compensation under various heads.

3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition and despite service of the summons upon the non-claimant No.1, nobody put in appearance on his behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him. Reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.2 while denying the contents of the claim petition. It was stated that on 04.03.2020 the deceased himself was negligent in plying his moped and on account of slipping of the moped, he received injuries, however, a false case was foisted against him. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petition be rejected.

4. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the contents of the same. It was however admitted by the insurance company that the vehicle was insured with it from 20.11.2019 to 19.11.2020. It was stated that the offending vehicle was plied by its driver in correct direction, however, the deceased while overtaking another vehicle the deceased met with the accident. It was further alleged that the offending vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and valid/effective licence by its driver, therefore, it was prayed that the claim petition be rejected.

5. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled four issues for determination.

6. For proving his case, the appellant examined AW.1 Harish Kumar and AW.2 Askar Khan (eyewitness) and also placed on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 28. The Non-claimants, however, did not lead any evidence.

7. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 08.08.2023 while deciding Issue No.1, after considering the evidence produced before it, has observed that FIR (Ex.2) was lodged by the son of the deceased, wherein after investigation charge sheet (Ex.1) was filed against the driver/non-claimant No.1 for offences under Section 279 and 304 A of IPC. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that though the non-claimants pleaded that the accident took place due to negligent driving of rider of moped, howev